The Routledge Handbook of
Instructed Second Language
Acquisition
The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition is the first collec-
tion of state-of-the-art papers pertaining to Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA).
Written by 45 world-renowned experts, the entries are full-length articles detailing pertinent
issues with up-to-date references. Each chapter serves three purposes:
(1) provide a review of current literature and discussions of cutting edge issues;
(2) share the authors’ understanding of, and approaches to, the issues; and
(3) provide direct links between research and practice.
In short, based on the chapters in this handbook, ISLA has attained a level of theoretical and
methodological maturity that provides a solid foundation for future empirical and pedagogi-
cal discovery. This handbook is the ideal resource for researchers, graduate students, upper-
level undergraduate students, teachers, and teacher-educators who are interested in second
language learning and teaching.
Shawn Loewen is Associate Professor of Second Language Studies at Michigan State
University, USA.
Masatoshi Sato is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Universidad Andrés
Bello, Chile.
Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics
Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics provide comprehensive overviews of the key
topics in applied linguistics. All entries for the handbooks are specially commissioned and
written by leading scholars in the field. Clear, accessible and carefully edited Routledge
Handbooks in Applied Linguistics are the ideal resource for both advanced undergraduates
and postgraduate students.
For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbooks-
in-Applied-Linguistics/book-series/RHAL
The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes
Edited by Andy Kirkpatrick
The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics
Edited by James Simpson
The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis
Edited by James Paul Gee and Michael Handford
The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
Edited by Susan Gass and Alison Mackey
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication
Edited by Jane Jackson
The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing
Edited by Glenn Fulcher and Fred Davidson
The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism
Edited by Marilyn Martin-Jones, Adrian Blackledge and Angela Creese
The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies
Edited by Carmen Millán-Varela and Francesca Bartrina
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Health Communication
Edited by Heidi E. Hamilton and Wen-ying Sylvia Chou
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication
Edited by Stephen Bremner and Vijay Bhatia
The Routledge Handbook
of Instructed Second
Language Acquisition
Edited by
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato
First published 2017
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
The right of Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato to be identified as the authors
of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has
been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-93623-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-67696-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
List of Illustrations viii
List of Contributors x
1
1 Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA): An Overview
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato 13
15
SECTION I 33
50
Second Language Processes and Products 69
2 Knowledge and Skill in ISLA 85
Robert DeKeyser 87
108
3 Intentional and Incidental L2 Learning 126
Ronald P. Leow and Celia C. Zamora
v
4 Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in L2 Production
Marije Michel
5 Sociocultural Theory in the L2 Classroom
Neomy Storch
SECTION II
Approaches to Second Language Instruction
6 Content-Based Language Teaching
Roy Lyster
7 Task-Based Language Teaching
Rod Ellis
8 Cognitive-Interactionist Approaches to L2 Instruction
YouJin Kim
Contents 146
166
9 Concept-Based Language Instruction 181
James P. Lantolf and Xian Zhang
203
10 Processing Instruction 205
Bill VanPatten 224
246
11 Assessment in the L2 Classroom 260
Ute Knoch and Susy Macqueen 280
299
SECTION III
319
Language and Instructed Second Language Acquisition 321
339
12 Grammar Acquisition 361
Hossein Nassaji
13 Acquisition of L2 Pragmatics
Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig
14 L2 Fluency Development
Tracey M. Derwing
15 Pronunciation Acquisition
Sara Kennedy and Pavel Trofimovich
16 Vocabulary Acquisition
Beatriz González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt
17 Written Language Learning
Charlene Polio and Jongbong Lee
SECTION IV
Instructed Second Language Acquisition Learning
Environments
18 ISLA in East Asian Contexts
Yuko Goto Butler
19 Study Abroad and ISLA
Carmen Pérez-Vidal
20 Computer-Assisted SLA
Hayo Reinders and Glenn Stockwell
vi
SECTION V Contents
Individual Differences and Instructed Second Language 377
Acquisition 379
396
21 Social Dimensions and Differences in Instructed SLA 418
Patricia A. Duff 433
451
22 Cognitive Differences and ISLA 468
Shaofeng Li 488
23 Motivation in the L2 Classroom 503
Kata Csizér 505
522
24 Psychological Dimensions and Foreign Language Anxiety 541
Jean-Marc Dewaele 562
577
25 L2 Instructor Individual Characteristics
Laura Gurzynski-Weiss 597
26 Child ISLA vii
Rhonda Oliver, Bich Nguyen, and Masatoshi Sato
27 Instructed Heritage Language Acquisition
Silvina Montrul and Melissa Bowles
SECTION VI
Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods
28 Quantitative Research Methods
Luke Plonsky
29 Qualitative Research Methods
Peter I. De Costa, Lorena Valmori, and Ina Choi
30 Classroom-Based Research
Alison Mackey
31 Experimental Research Methods
Kim McDonough
32 Ethics in ISLA
Susan Gass and Scott Sterling
Index
Illustrations
Figures 88
99
6.1 Range of CBLT settings 153
6.2 Instructional sequence integrating language and content in CBLT 157
9.1 Partial SCOBA for particle “out,” meaning “selection” 157
9.2 SCOBA for topicalization of object 160
9.3 Material SCOBA illustrating topicalization options in Chinese 439
9.4 Kris’s gesture while producing an OSV utterance
24.1 Nested design of anxieties 453
25.1 The interplay of contextual factors, learner individual differences,
461
and instructor characteristics in ISLA 506
25.2 Developing a taxonomy of instructor corrective feedback 510
515
decision-making 523
28.1 Basic design scheme and major decisions in ISLA research 526
28.2 Main contrasts in ISLA analyses
28.3 Summary of meta-analytic effects in ISLA across subdomains 110
29.1 Multifaceted nature of language learning and teaching 112
29.2 Aligning methodology with theory and paradigm 114
119
Tables 183
7.1 Comparison of task-supported and task-based language teaching 195
7.2 Differences in task-based language teaching approaches 247
7.3 Addressing some common misconceptions about TBLT
7.4 Typical design variables 283
11.1 Dimensions of CBA with examples 363
11.2 Teacher considerations relating to different assessment methods
421
based on Hill and McNamara’s (2012) dimensions of CBA
14.1 Common measures of utterance fluency 510
16.1 Nation’s (2013) framework of the dimensions involved
in knowing a word
20.1 Affordances of CALL
23.1 Classroom-related elements from Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998)
process model of L2 motivation
28.1 Three critiques of p-values and corresponding benefits
of effect sizes
viii
28.2 Descriptive statistics for sample study Illustrations
28.3 Descriptors for meta-analyses with multiple groups
511
presented in Figure 28.3
29.1 Paradigms, epistemology, and ontology 516
32.1 RCR domains 526
581
ix
Contributors
Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig is Professor of Second Language Studies at Indiana University
where she teaches and conducts research on second language acquisition, L2 pragmatics,
and tense-aspect systems. Her work on pragmatics has appeared in Language Learning,
SSLA, Intercultural Pragmatics, and Language Teaching Research. She is co-editor of Inter-
language Pragmatics and Teaching Pragmatics and co-editor of two volumes of Pragmatics
and Language Learning (2006, 2016).
Melissa Bowles is Associate Professor of Spanish, Linguistics, and Educational Psychol-
ogy and Director of the Second Language Acquisition and Teacher Education (SLATE) PhD
concentration at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her main research interests
are classroom second and heritage language acquisition and the ways in which instruction
differentially affects the two learner groups.
Yuko Goto Butler is Associate Professor of Educational Linguistics at the Graduate School
of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also the director of Teaching English
to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) program at Penn.
Ina Choi is a PhD candidate in Second Language Studies at Michigan State University. She
holds an MA in Foreign and Second Language Education from The Ohio State University.
Her research interests focus on second language vocabulary acquisition and incidental and
intentional language learning.
Kata Csizér is Associate Professor in the Department of English Applied Linguistics, Eötvös
University, Budapest, and holds a PhD in Language Pedagogy. Her main field of research
interest focuses on the sociopsychological aspects of L2 learning and teaching as well as
second and foreign language motivation.
Peter I. De Costa is Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Languages at
Michigan State University. His primary areas of research are identity and ideology. His work
has appeared in Language Learning, Language Teaching, System, and TESOL Quarterly.
Robert DeKeyser is Professor of Second Language Acquisition at the University of Mary-
land and has a PhD from Stanford University. His interests include skill acquisition theory,
the roles of implicit and explicit learning, individual differences, aptitude-treatment interac-
tion, and study abroad. He is associate editor of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition and
former editor of Language Learning.
x
Contributors
Tracey M. Derwing is Professor Emeritus in Educational Psychology (TESL), University
of Alberta, and Adjunct Professor in Linguistics at Simon Fraser University. Her interests
include the interrelationships of comprehensibility and intelligibility with aspects of pro-
nunciation, native speaker adjustments for L2 speakers, and the enhancement of immigrant
settlement.
Jean-Marc Dewaele is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism at Birkbeck,
University of London. He is president of the International Association of Multilingualism
and former president of the European Second Language Association. He is general editor of
the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. He won the Equality and
Diversity Research Award from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
(2013) and the Robert Gardner Award for Excellence in Second Language and Bilingualism
Research (2016) from the International Association of Language and Social Psychology.
Patricia A. Duff is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of British Columbia.
Her research interests include language socialization and learning in multilingual contexts,
the teaching/learning of English as a global language, and qualitative research methods in
applied linguistics. She has published and lectured on these topics widely.
Rod Ellis is Research Professor at Curtin University, Australia, and Cheung Kong Scholar
Chair Professor at Shanghai International Studies University. He was recently elected
a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand. His published works include numerous
articles and books on second language acquisition, language teaching and teacher edu-
cation. His latest book is an edited collection, Becoming and Being an Applied Linguist
(2015).
Susan Gass is University Distinguished Professor of Second Language Studies (SLS) at
Michigan State University where she serves as director of the English Language Center and
of the SLS Program. She has published widely in the field of second language acquisition
including books on second language acquisition and research methods.
Beatriz González-Fernández is a PhD student of Applied Linguistics at the University
of Nottingham. Her research interests include the processing, acquisition, and instruction
of vocabulary in second languages. More specifically, her work examines how the differ-
ent vocabulary knowledge components are acquired, in order to inform more systematic
vocabulary pedagogy.
Laura Gurzynski-Weiss is Associate Professor in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese
at Indiana University. She investigates interaction- and task-based classroom ISLA, feed-
back provision and perception, instructor cognition, research methodology, and the role of
interlocutor and instructor individual characteristics as well as learner individual differences.
Sara Kennedy is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Education
at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. Her research focuses on the learning, instruc-
tion, assessment, and use of second language speech, especially pronunciation.
YouJin Kim is Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL at
Georgia State University. Her primary research interests include the role of interaction and
xi
Contributors
individual differences in second language acquisition, task-based language teaching, and
structural priming focusing both on adolescent and adult language learning.
Ute Knoch is the Director of the Language Testing Research Centre at the University of
Melbourne. She has published in journals such as Language Testing, Language Assessment
Quarterly, Applied Linguistics, Assessing Writing, and Journal of Second Language Writing.
In her research she focusses on a variety of topics in the area of language assessment.
James P. Lantolf is Greer Professor in Language Acquisition and Applied Linguistics, and
Director of the Center for Language Acquisition and the Center for Advanced Language Pro-
ficiency Education and Research (CALPER) at Pennsylvania State University. His research
focuses on classroom language teaching, learning, and assessment.
Jongbong Lee is a PhD student in the Second Language Studies program at Michi-
gan State University. He has taught English and Korean in various locations in Korea
and the US. His research interests include second language writing, corpus linguistics,
interactional feedback, and language assessment. He holds an MA in TESL from George-
town University as well as a BA and an MA in English Language Education from Korea
University.
Ronald P. Leow is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of Spanish Language
Instruction in the Spanish and Portuguese Department at Georgetown University. His areas
of expertise include language curriculum development, teacher education, instructed lan-
guage learning, and cognitive processes. In addition to his numerous publications in presti-
gious journals, he has co-edited four books and authored one book (2015).
Shaofeng Li is Senior Lecturer at the University of Auckland, where he teaches postgradu-
ate and undergraduate courses in second language acquisition and pedagogy and supervises
Master’s and PhD students. His research interests include language aptitude, corrective feed-
back, task-based instruction, and research methods.
Shawn Loewen is Associate Professor in the Second Language Studies and MA TESOL
programs at Michigan State University. His research interests include instructed second
language acquisition and quantitative research methodology. In addition to publish-
ing in leading SLA journals, he has co-authored two books: Key Concepts in Second
Language Acquisition and An A–Z of Applied Linguistics Research Methods. His sole
authored book, Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition, was pub-
lished in 2015.
Roy Lyster is Professor of Second Language Education in the Department of Integrated
Studies Education at McGill University in Montreal. He is author of two books: Learning
and Teaching Languages through Content published in 2007 and Vers une approche intégrée
en immersion published in 2016.
Kim McDonough is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Applied Linguistics at Con-
cordia University. Her research interests include interaction and usage-based approaches
to second language acquisition, structural priming, task-based language teaching, and col-
laborative writing.
xii
Contributors
Alison Mackey is Professor of Linguistics at Georgetown University (US) and Lancaster
University (UK). Her research interests are in second language acquisition, specifically the
role of input, interaction, feedback, and cognitive factors in L2 learning together with second
language research design and methodology.
Susy Macqueen is Lecturer in the School of Literature, Languages & Linguistics at the
Australian National University. She has experience teaching in primary, secondary, and ter-
tiary educational contexts and has been involved in many language assessment projects,
including test development projects for younger learners and evaluations of language learn-
ing programs.
Marije Michel is Assistant Professor at Lancaster University (UK) and holds a PhD from
University of Amsterdam. Her research focuses on task-based performance, processing and
assessment in second language acquisition and in particular the role of task complexity.
Recently, she started using eye-tracking methodology to investigate attentional processes
during second language (online) writing behavior.
Silvina Montrul is Professor of Linguistics and Spanish at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, with expertise in linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to second
language acquisition and bilingualism, language attrition, heritage languages, and the acqui-
sition of Spanish. Her latest book is The Acquisition of Heritage Languages, published in
2016.
Hossein Nassaji is Professor and Department Chair in the Linguistics Department at
the University of Victoria, Canada. His recent books are Interactional Feedback Dimen-
sion in Instructed Second Language Learning (2015) and Teaching Grammar in Second
Language Classrooms (with Sandra Fotos, 2010). He is the winner of the Twenty-First
Annual Kenneth W. Mildenberger Prize of Modern Language Association of America
and the recipient of the 2012 Faculty of Humanities Award for Research Excellence,
University of Victoria.
Bich Nguyen works as a research officer in the School of Education at Curtin University
in Western Australia. Her research interests include world Englishes, systemic functional-
ism, Aboriginal education, and language teaching methodology. She has also been a second
language teacher for 13 years.
Rhonda Oliver is Professor in the School of Education at Curtin University, Australia. Her work
has appeared in a number of international and national journals including Language Learning,
Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and TESOL Quarterly.
Her current research focuses on second language/dialect acquisition, particularly with children.
Carmen Pérez-Vidal is Associate Professor at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, specializing
in language acquisition with focuses on study abroad and immersion, and English linguis-
tics. She has recently edited the volume Language Acquisition in Study Abroad and Formal
Instruction Contexts published in 2014.
Luke Plonsky is Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Georgetown Uni-
versity, where he teaches courses in research methods and SLA. Publications in these and
xiii
Contributors
other areas appear in Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, and Modern Language Jour-
nal among other venues. He is associate editor of Studies in Second Language Acquisition
and managing editor of Foreign Language Annals.
Charlene Polio is Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Linguistics &
Germanic, Slavic, Asian & African Languages at Michigan State University. Her main
area of research is second language writing including the various research methods and
the interface between the fields of L2 writing and second language acquisition. She has
published in TESOL Quarterly, Modern Language Journal, the Journal of Second Lan-
guage Writing, and Studies in Second Language Acquisition and is the co-author, with
Debra Friedman, of Understanding, Evaluating, and Conducting Second Language Writ-
ing Research (2017).
Hayo Reinders (www.innovationinteaching.org) is Professor of Education at Unitec in New
Zealand and TESOL Professor and Director of the doctoral program at Anaheim University,
USA. His interests are in technology, learner autonomy, and out-of-class learning. He edits
a book series for Palgrave Macmillan and is editor of the journal Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching.
Masatoshi Sato is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Universidad Andres Bello,
Chile. His research interests include peer interaction, corrective feedback, teacher educa-
tion, CALL, and language testing. His work was recently published in IRAL, Language
Awareness, Language Learning, Language Teaching, SSLA, System, and Modern Language
Journal, and he co-edited Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical poten-
tial and research agenda (2016).
Norbert Schmitt is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Nottingham. He
is interested in all aspects of second language vocabulary acquisition, description, and use.
He has published six books and more than 50 journal articles on the topic.
Scott Sterling is Assistant Professor of Linguistics and TESL at Indiana State University.
His main area of interest is in meta-research, focusing on the responsible conduct of research
(RCR) in linguistics research.
Glenn Stockwell is Professor at Waseda University, Japan and holds a PhD from Univer-
sity of Queensland. He is co-author of CALL Dimensions: Issues and Options in Computer
Assisted Language Learning (2006) with Mike Levy and editor of Computer-Assisted
Language Learning: Diversity in Research and Practice (2012), and he has published
numerous book chapters and articles in the field of CALL. He is editor-in-chief of the
JALT CALL Journal, associate editor of Computer Assisted Language Learning and Lan-
guage Learning & Technology, and on the editorial boards of ReCALL, System and the
CALICO Journal.
Neomy Storch is Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics and the ESL Program Conve-
nor in the School of Languages & Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. Her research
focuses on issues related to ESL pedagogy, and in particular second language writing and
the nature of peer interaction.
xiv
Contributors
Pavel Trofimovich is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Education at
Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. His research focuses on cognitive aspects of
second language processing, second language phonology, sociolinguistic aspects of second
language acquisition, and the teaching of second language pronunciation.
Lorena Valmori is a PhD candidate in Second Language Studies at Michigan State Univer-
sity. Her teaching experience has informed her research interests in motivational dynamics,
identity, and emotions in second language learning. She has recently published her work in
Language Teaching.
Bill VanPatten is Professor of Spanish and Second Language Studies at Michigan State
University and affiliate faculty in Cognitive Science. He is widely known for his work in sec-
ond language acquisition and instructed second language acquisition with particular focus on
language processing and input processing.
Celia C. Zamora is a PhD candidate in Spanish Applied Linguistics from Georgetown Uni-
versity. Her dissertation looks to compare how heritage speakers and L2 learners of Spanish
process +/− explicit feedback in a computerized task with concurrent data elicitation mea-
sures (Think Alouds). She serves as the Spanish Language Representative for the Center for
Applied Linguistics (CAL).
Xian Zhang is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at University of North Texas. His research
focuses on second language acquisition, including especially Chinese, language processing,
cognitive neuroscience, lexical acquisition, and experimental research design.
xv
1
Instructed Second Language
Acquisition (ISLA)
An Overview
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato
What Is ISLA?
The field of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) continues to be a growing sub-
field within the discipline of second language acquisition (SLA) (see Nassaji, 2016). There
are many similar concerns between the two fields, but the continued growth of second lan-
guage (L2) learning and teaching, as a pedagogical, economic, social, and political activity,
ensures that researchers, teachers, and learners continue to grapple with the practicalities of
how best to acquire, learn, and teach an additional language.
There have been several attempts to define and describe the boundaries of ISLA (e.g., Ellis,
2005; Housen & Pierrard, 2005), with perhaps the most recent one found in Loewen (2015)
in which he describes ISLA as
a theoretically and empirically based field of academic inquiry that aims to understand
how the systematic manipulation of the mechanisms of learning and/or the conditions
under which they occur enable or facilitate the development and acquisition of an addi-
tional language.
p. 2
This definition focuses on several key aspects that will be explored further in this introductory
chapter.
An Academic Field
An important starting point is that ISLA is an academic endeavor, meaning that it is based
on a rigorous and scientific process of accumulating knowledge about L2 learning. To that
end, theories and hypotheses have been and are being proposed about general or specific
aspects of the L2 learning process (see VanPatten & Williams, 2015 for a recent overview of
SLA theories); furthermore, these theories and hypotheses are investigated using data that
researchers gather and interpret. Because researchers rely on specific skills and methods to
research L2 learning (e.g., Larson-Hall, 2010; Mackey & Gass, 2015; Paltridge & Phakiti,
1
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato
2015), ISLA includes examination of research methodology, not because it necessarily has a
direct impact on L2 learning (although in some cases it might, such as action research), but
because research methods are lenses that provide information from specific epistemologi-
cal perspectives. Consequently, methodology impacts the credibility and trustworthiness of
research findings that ultimately inform pedagogical practice.
Systematic Manipulation
Another defining component of ISLA is the systematic manipulation of the learning environ-
ment and learning processes, which separates ISLA from what has been called, among other
things, uninstructed or naturalistic L2 acquisition; in this, learners are simply surrounded
by the target language but make no or little conscious effort to learn the language. Such
scenarios might involve immigrants who are exposed to another language as they live in
a wider social context, but who are not actively involved in learning the L2. Alternatively,
uninstructed L2 learning might occur when expatriates who live and work in non-L1 con-
texts gain some knowledge of the local language, even though they are not concerned with
achieving L2 proficiency. In both cases, the L2 may be “picked up” to a greater (in the case
of immigrants) or lesser (for expatriates) degree, but the point is that there is no systematic
effort by individuals to learn the L2 and/or by teachers/institutions to help develop the L2;
rather, any L2 development results simply from exposure to the target language.
Instructional Contexts
The prototypical context for ISLA is, of course, the language classroom, which may take
many different shapes: from introductory lessons for children in elementary school that
aim to give kids a taste of an L2, to required university foreign language courses, to private
language schools whose sole purpose is to promote L2 learning. However, it is important
to point out that the physical classroom is not the only context of interest for ISLA because
there is considerable L2 learning that occurs outside of the four walls of a classroom (Leow,
2015). For instance, the virtual L2 classroom is an increasingly popular L2 learning context,
with both hybrid and fully online options (see Benson & Reinders, 2011). In addition, there
are other circumstances, such as learner self-study, in which there is systematic manipulation
of the learning conditions. For example, although autonomous learners may rely solely on
authentic materials, in which case the level of manipulation is very low, learners generally
use some type of study aid, such as books or computer programs or apps, to help them in their
learning process. These materials, then, have been developed (i.e., manipulated) by individu-
als who presumably believe that the materials will be effective for L2 learning.
Another context that is included in ISLA is study abroad, even though the amount of
manipulation may be minimal if students are placed in content classes taught in the target
language and left to their own devices; however, many study abroad programs provide
considerable structure for L2 learning. In such cases, learners are exposed to both inten-
tional and incidental learning conditions (see Pérez-Vidal, 2014). As study abroad students
interact in the broader target language context, they may not differ substantially from unin-
structed learners; however, the mere fact that they have chosen to engage in study abroad
indicates that they have altered their circumstances in an effort to gain more knowledge of
the L2. Thus, although the amount of manipulation may vary, and it may be done by teach-
ers, learners, or others (such as textbook designers), there is always at least some effort to
acquire the L2.
2
ISLA: An Overview
Finally, it is important to point out that learning contexts may also affect the effectiveness
of instruction because language instruction is a culturally bound endeavor, and while the
fields of SLA and ISLA were primarily developed in North American and Western European
contexts, the considerable importance of L2 instruction in other parts of the world has neces-
sitated different perspectives on the classroom. In other words, it is necessary to conduct
research in different learning contexts that may challenge existing ISLA theories or provide
alternative perspectives. As an example, the different perspectives between task-based lan-
guage teaching with its emphasis on student-centered activities (see Shehadeh & Coombe,
2012) and, in contrast, more teacher-centered educational cultures require ISLA researchers
to consider how larger social, political, or ideological variables may affect the classroom
(see Block, 2014).
Target of Manipulation
Another important consideration of ISLA are the mechanisms of learning, which include the
processing and internalization of input; the restructuring, consolidation and storage of L2
knowledge; and the production of L2 output. However, not all learning mechanisms are of
equal interest to ISLA researchers because some mental processes are not open to manipula-
tion. For example, Universal Grammar (UG) or innatist perspectives of L2 acquisition are
not primarily focused on instruction because arguably there is little that can be done to alter
the makeup of the cognitive system. White (2015) states: “Clearly one cannot instruct L2ers
as to UG-constraints (nor does anyone attempt to do so)” (p. 48). Similarly, the implicit
processes that are involved in extracting patterns from input, as proposed by frequency- or
usage-based approaches to L2 learning, are not generally influenced by L2 instruction, as
Ellis and Wulff (2015) claim: “exemplar-based learning . . . is in large parts implicit . . .
taking place without learners being consciously aware of it” (p. 76). Nevertheless, both
innatist and frequency-based perspectives do have an interest in how the input that learners
receive—which can be manipulated—affects the L2 learning process. In general, therefore,
ISLA research is concerned with L2 learning processes that are hypothesized to be or have
been found to be amenable to intervention.
Goals of Instruction
Having described ISLA in somewhat technical terms, it is important to consider, in more lay
terms, its primary concern, which is: what is the best way to learn and/or teach an additional
language? Implicit in this question is the notion that instruction can make a difference in L2
learning; however, the views about the amount of influence instruction can have on L2 learn-
ing range from minimal to extensive. For example, early theoretical views by Krashen (e.g.,
1982, and more recently 2003), exemplified in a strong version of communicative language
teaching (CLT), argue that instruction has little impact on L2 acquisition; instead, learners
need to be provided with rich, authentic input in the classroom. Such views about the inef-
fectiveness of instruction, however, are in the minority, and most ISLA researchers, almost
by definition, believe that instruction of some sort can positively influence L2 learning.
However, it is all well and good to say that L2 instruction is effective, but we also need
to ask ourselves, Effective for what? In other words, what is the goal of L2 instruction?
The goals of individual L2 learners or teachers may vary, but overall, the goal of many in
the ISLA endeavor is for learners to develop communicative competence in the L2, that is the
ability to use the L2 for communicative purposes (e.g., Littlewood, 2014). Of course, some
3
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato
learners have other goals, such as gaining reading ability in the L2, learning phrases to help
them on an upcoming trip, passing a L2 course required for their degree, or obtaining a good
result on a standardized test to advance their careers. In other words, full proficiency or com-
municative competence may not be the goal. Nevertheless, if the goal of L2 instruction is
often L2 proficiency, then we need to consider what precisely proficiency consists of, how
to measure it, and what can bring it about.
Although there are different theoretical viewpoints about what constitutes L2 learners’
linguistic knowledge, there is general agreement that not all knowledge is the same. On
the one hand, there is what has been called explicit knowledge, declarative knowledge,
or knowledge “about” language, all of which consist of information that learners are con-
sciously aware of (DeKeyser, 2015; Rebuschat, 2013). Furthermore, this type of knowledge
can be verbalized by learners and it can be reflected upon, although it may take the form of
either lay terminology, such as “You need an -s because it is he,” or more technical, metalin-
guistic descriptions, such as “third person singular -s.” Another characteristic of explicit or
declarative knowledge is that it is easily taught, in the same way as mathematic equations or
historical dates. Teachers can present explicit information, often in the form of grammatical
rules, and learners can commit them to memory. Subsequently, teachers can test to determine
whether learners have retained this knowledge, and, if students have studied hard and have
sufficient time to draw on their knowledge, they may do well on such tests.
However, the difficulty with explicit or declarative knowledge is that it is not readily
available for use in spontaneous, real-time communication. For that, learners need to possess
a type of knowledge that has been referred to variously as implicit knowledge, procedural-
ized knowledge, or knowledge “of” language, which is held unconsciously by the learner. In
other words, learners are not aware of this knowledge, and they cannot verbalize it; however,
learners are able to access it rapidly to communicate in spontaneous, real-time contexts.
(Note, however, that it is possible for learners to possess both types of knowledge of the
same linguistic feature.) The quintessential example of implicit knowledge is the knowledge
that speakers have of their L1, especially before they receive any educational instruction
about the language (via language arts or literature classes). When L2 learners ask L1 speak-
ers why a specific utterance is grammatically or collocationally non-target-like, L1 speakers
will often reply, “I don’t know. It just sounds wrong.” L1 speakers certainly know whether
an utterance is acceptable in their L1, but they may not have the explicit knowledge of the
linguistic rules to state why it is not acceptable. In sum, implicit knowledge is the primary
contributor to communicative competence; therefore, it is the type of knowledge that many
L2 learners wish to obtain and the type of knowledge that ISLA is primarily concerned with.
Specific language domains to which implicit knowledge can be deployed vary. Following
the research focus in the field of linguistics, grammar has traditionally been the domain of
ISLA research, with other linguistic areas receiving less coverage. However, that situation
has changed over the past 20 years, with the increased emphasis on vocabulary, as well as
pronunciation and pragmatics. Furthermore, one of the efforts of ISLA has been to provide
a more integrated view of language and to consider ways in which theoretical concerns may
apply across linguistic domains. So, for example, does the theoretical concern with explicit
and implicit L2 knowledge, which has been primarily concerned with grammar, also apply
to vocabulary, pronunciation, and pragmatics? Or are other theoretical perspectives more
applicable? Although ISLA has been concerned with linguistic knowledge, there has also
been a concern, especially among teachers and learners, with the language skills, especially
productive skills. Consequently, some ISLA researchers conceptualize the goal of instruc-
tion in skill domains such as listening, reading, writing, and speaking.
4
ISLA: An Overview
Type of Instruction
While explicit knowledge (e.g., being able to recite grammatical rules) is relatively easy to
gain and can be taught explicitly, implicit knowledge (e.g., being able to communicate in
the target language accurately and fluently) is less amenable to instruction and often takes
considerable time to develop. But if the goal of learners (and teachers and researchers) is
implicit knowledge, how can this goal be achieved in the classroom? Can explicit knowledge
be taught and then converted into implicit knowledge? ISLA scholars disagree on this point,
which is referred to as interface positions. There are three perspectives: (1) the noninterface
position maintains that the two types of knowledge are distinct and it is not possible for
explicit knowledge to become implicit; (2) the weak interface position argues that under
the right circumstances explicit knowledge may become implicit, but such conversion is
not easy; and (3) the strong interface position claims that explicit knowledge can become
implicit.
The reason that it is important to consider the relationship between explicit and implicit
knowledge, from an ISLA perspective, is that it is important to know which types of manipu-
lations (or instruction) are going to have an effect on which types of L2 knowledge. Within
the last several decades, the investigation into this topic has been framed in terms of mean-
ing-focused instruction and form-focused instruction. Meaning-focused instruction has its
roots in the CLT movement, as put forward by researchers such as Krashen, who argued that
the best way to bring about L2 communicative competence is by having learners commu-
nicate in the target language and that explicit instruction of linguistic forms (e.g., teaching
grammar) has a detrimental effect on the development of communicative competence.
However, over time it became clear that meaning-focused instruction alone would not
bring about the level of accuracy in L2 learner production that might be desired. Conse-
quently, focus on form was put forward as a way of having brief attention to linguistic items
during larger meaning-focused interaction (Long, 1996) in order to develop both accuracy
and fluency in L2 learners. Long contrasted focus on form with focus on forms, the latter of
which is the term he used for traditional, explicit language instruction. Over time, the terms
focus on form and focus on forms, as well as form-focused instruction have been used some-
what differently by different researchers. Our current way of understanding of these terms
(e.g., Loewen, 2015) is that form-focused instruction is a superordinate category that is com-
mensurate with meaning-focused instruction; however, whereas meaning-focused instruc-
tion focuses exclusively on communication without any, or very minimal, attending focus
on linguistic items or structures, form-focused instruction includes attention to linguistic
form to varying degrees. Focus on form and focus on forms, then, are subordinate categories
within form-focused instruction that reflect the amount of attention to linguistic structures in
the instruction. In focus on forms, the primary focus is on linguistic structures, and instruc-
tion often follows a structural syllabus with different grammatical features being introduced
in consecutive fashion. In contrast, focus on form describes instruction that is primarily
meaning-focused, but includes brief attention to linguistic items as the need arises during
communication. Sometimes, focus on forms and focus on form are used dichotomously to
indicate two different types of instruction; however, it is perhaps more helpful to think of the
two types of instruction as poles on a continuum, in which the ratio of attention to language
form and meaning change proportionally.
So why does it matter how implicitly or explicitly language structures are addressed in
instruction? Well, it goes back to the notion of what type of L2 knowledge teachers and
researchers want learners to develop. There is a tendency for explicit instruction to result in
5
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato
explicit L2 knowledge, which tends not to be helpful in developing learners’ communicative
competence. Thus, the argument is that more implicit types of instruction, which have more
emphasis on meaning and communication, are more suited for the development of implicit
L2 knowledge. However, it is also the case that if instruction is too implicit, there may be
no improvement in the accurate use of the targeted linguistic feature (as can be seen in fos-
silization of immersion learners). Currently, much ISLA research is ultimately concerned,
either directly or indirectly, with the optimal combination of attention to language forms and
language meaning in the classroom.
Having made a broad claim about the focus of ISLA research, it is important to acknowl-
edge that there are numerous variables, both internal and external to the learner, which
moderate and influence the effectiveness of instruction. Such individual differences are both
interesting and challenging to ISLA researcher (as well as teachers and learners) who are try-
ing to account for the effects of instruction. Learner-internal factors that have received con-
siderable ISLA investigation include motivation, language aptitude, and foreign language
anxiety (see Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), while learner-external factors include the micro- and
macro-social contexts in which learners find themselves (see The Douglas Fir Group, 2016).
Furthermore, teachers’ characteristics may affect the ultimate effect of instruction (see Borg &
Sanchez, 2015).
In sum, this overview has attempted to provide an overarching framework for ISLA,
while introducing the rich array of concerns and interests that comprise ISLA research.
Given the diversity and complexity within the field, we refer the reader to the individual
chapters included in the current handbook for specific theoretical foci, empirical references,
and practical pedagogical suggestions.
About This Handbook
This handbook is the first collection of state-of-the-art papers pertaining to ISLA, with the
purpose both to provide an overview of past ISLA research as well as to identify new and
growing areas of interest. The handbook consists of 32 chapters (including the current chap-
ter) written by 45 world-renowned experts and prominently emerging researchers in the
field. Unlike many handbooks and encyclopedias, the entries are full-length articles detailing
pertinent issues surrounding the respective topics. In addition, authors were asked to discuss
updated research (as recent as 2017 publications) so that readers, both researchers and teach-
ers alike, could be informed of current issues and cutting-edge pedagogical developments.
We hoped to be comprehensive and inclusive in terms of topics but, at the same time, we are
aware that such an endeavor never sees perfection.
The authors come from varying theoretical backgrounds precisely due to ISLA’s cross-
disciplinary nature (e.g., linguistics, psycholinguistics, psychology, sociolinguistics, tech-
nology, and education). Moreover, in order to reveal the complexity of L2 acquisition in
instructional settings and to provide useful information to practitioners, we believed it
was necessary to accumulate knowledge from differing perspectives. In this respect, we
requested that authors share their expert opinions on their topics rather than merely sur-
veying and summarizing existing research findings, with the result that each contribution
constitutes a unique position paper. Also, we asked the authors to give a special attention to
the I in ISLA by emphasizing pedagogical aspects and implications. As a result, we believe
that each chapter serves three purposes: (1) providing updated literature and discussions of
current issues; (2) sharing the authors’ understanding of and approaches to the issues; and
(3) providing direct links between research and practice.
6
ISLA: An Overview
Components of the Handbook
Each chapter starts with a Background section where the authors layout the framework for
the topics. The following Current Issues section introduces theoretical and methodological
issues that have been debated in the past, as well as those that are still being debated. Then,
the authors elaborate the identified issues with empirical findings in the Empirical Evidence
section. Importantly, the empirical evidence is discussed in order to support both the theoretical
and pedagogical discussions. In the following Pedagogical Implications section (which occurs
in all chapters except for those in Section I, focusing on theoretical issues, and Section VI,
covering methodological concerns), the authors apply the empirical findings to instructional
contexts. Finally, the authors conclude their chapters with the Future Directions section where
they propose new research topics based on current studies and noticeable gaps in the research.
In addition to structuring each chapter in the aforementioned way, we asked the authors
to include two types of call-out boxes. In Key Concepts boxes, the authors introduce and/or
define concepts that are important to their topics. We hoped that the boxes would serve as a
quick reference for a reader who may not be familiar with a particular topic. In the Teaching
Tips call-out boxes, the authors offer practical pedagogical advice based on their research
experiences. These call-out boxes can provide readers with a quick summary of some of the
most important theoretical and pedagogical points in each chapter.
Topics in the Handbook
To achieve the goal of surveying research in the multifaceted discipline of ISLA, we divided
the handbook into six sections.
• Section I: Second Language Processes and Products
• Section II: Approaches to Second Language Instruction
• Section III: Language and Instructed Second Language Acquisition
• Section IV: Instructed Second Language Acquisition Learning Environments
• Section V: Individual Differences and Instructed Second Language Acquisition
• Section VI: Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research Methods
It should be noted that in reality there is sometimes considerable and inevitable overlap
between sections, and within chapters in a section. For example, Section I on L2 processes
and products is more theoretical, but several of the chapters provide direct support for spe-
cific types of approaches to instruction in Section II. Additionally, different types of instruc-
tion (Section II) may be more or less relevant to specific aspects of language (Section III).
Research both of learning and teaching environments (Section IV) and individual differ-
ences (Section V) require theoretical bases (Section I) and relate to instruction (Section II).
Not to mention, research methodology (Section VI) is relevant to all research discussed
throughout the handbook. The interconnection is a testimony of, again, the complexity of
ISLA. Next we explain the main themes of each section and chapter.
Section I: Second Language Processes and Products
This section is probably the most theoretical and least directly applicable to the classroom;
however, it is essential to understand the goals of ISLA—what is the result of ISLA—and
how to achieve those goals. In Chapter 2, Robert DeKeyser dissects the issues related to
7
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato
L2 knowledge and skills (e.g., declarative/procedural, implicit/explicit, and automatized/
controlled) and argues that the goal of ISLA is automatized procedural knowledge. He dis-
cusses different variables found to affect the development of such knowledge including the
role of distributed practice, specificity of practice, and corrective feedback, all of which are
relevant to classroom practice. Ronald P. Leow and Celia C. Zamora (Chapter 3) focus on
mechanisms of L2 processing and type of L2 learning especially in relation to incidental/
intentional learning. They caution that the construct of learning should be treated carefully in
order to understand L2 processes (incidental/implicit vs. intentional/explicit) in instructional
settings. In Chapter 4, Marije Michel discusses the result of L2 learning—complexity, accu-
racy, and fluency (CAF) in L2 production. The author provides a survey of CAF research and
connects the findings to classroom assessment; she also calls for research to investigate the
role of L2 production in the acquisition process. Finally, in Chapter 5, Neomy Storch adds a
social perspective to ISLA. Based on sociocultural theory, the author argues for the inclusion
of such perspectives in order to further our understanding of L2 learning processes and to
better help teachers make pedagogical decisions (e.g., corrective feedback and group work).
Section II: Approaches to Second Language Instruction
This section explores different types of instruction that have been theoretically and empiri-
cally supported. In Chapter 6, Roy Lyster overviews a wide range of program types of
content-based language teaching (CBLT) around the world. He makes a case for teaching
language and content at the same time, with an emphasis on counterbalanced approaches
to best assist the development of language skills in the classroom. Chapter 7 is devoted
to task-based language teaching (TBLT). Rod Ellis first distinguishes TBLT from task-
supported language teaching. He then shares practical suggestions as to what kinds of
tasks to implement, how to implement them, and how to integrate tasks into a language
curriculum. In Chapter 8, YouJin Kim summarizes research based on the interactionist
perspective as a framework for ISLA. She offers suggestions as to how to enhance the
effects of interaction, both between the teacher and learners and among learners, on L2
learning through corrective feedback, collaborative tasks, and learner training. James P.
Lantolf and Xian Zhang (Chapter 9) discuss in detail a rather new pedagogical approach
called concept-based language teaching. By reviewing sociocultural theory not only in
relation to L2 education but to education in general, the authors introduce a Schema for the
Orienting Basis of Action (SCOBA) for teaching a L2. In Chapter 10, Bill VanPatten pro-
vides a theoretical discussion of input processing and argues for processing instruction as a
pedagogical intervention. He then suggests processing-oriented pedagogical interventions
(POPIs) as a way of creating a mental representation of language based on input. Chapter 11
concerns a distinct yet important aspect of ISLA, that is, assessment. Ute Knoch and Susy
Macqueen explain the concept of classroom-based assessment (CBA) and provide infor-
mation pertaining to the timing and focus of assessment, as well as advice for individuals
involved in the assessment process.
Section III: Language and Instructed Second
Language Acquisition
This section addresses the different aspects of language that are the target of L2 instruc-
tion. First, Hossein Nassaji (Chapter 12) tackles arguably the most-investigated target in
ISLA, namely, grammar. In reviewing major types of instruction (e.g., explicit/implicit,
8
ISLA: An Overview
focus-on-form/focus-on-form, input-based/output-based), the author reveals how they dif-
ferentially assist different types of L2 knowledge. In Chapter 13, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig
focuses on pragmatics—the how-to-say-what-to-whom-when aspects of language. The author
succinctly summarizes the challenges in teaching pragmatics or including it in a L2 program
and provides empirical evidence that should be applied to L2 instruction. Chapter 14 concerns
another linguistic target: fluency. Tracey M. Derwing discusses not only the processing aspects
of fluency (or dysfluency) but also its social impacts. After reviewing pertinent research, the
author introduces a variety of classroom activities designed to help learners develop fluency.
Yet another important target in ISLA is pronunciation. In Chapter 15, in addition to discussing
acoustic and perceptual aspects of L2 pronunciation, Sara Kennedy and Pavel Trofimovich
emphasize the importance of considering pedagogical norms (e.g., nativeness versus intel-
ligibility). The authors share their pedagogical perspectives by including various elements
related to instruction of pronunciation (e.g., outside-class learning, teacher cognition, and
computer-aided teaching). Chapter 16 concerns acquisition of vocabulary knowledge. Beatriz
González-Fernández and Norbert Schmitt first summarize the historical background of vocab-
ulary research in order to substantiate current pedagogical practices. Through the chapter, the
authors provide the reader with useful pedagogical suggestions to increase both intentional and
incidental exposure to target words in the classroom. Finally, Charlene Polio and Jongbong
Lee (Chapter 17) take a different way of looking at L2 production, namely, L2 writing and its
effects on the development of L2 knowledge. They too provide pedagogical suggestions based
on updated research, especially related to written corrective feedback.
Section IV: Instructed Second Language Acquisition
Learning Environments
This section acknowledges that ISLA is mediated by learning environments whereby target
languages have different societal statuses and are learned differently due to different modes
of communication. In Chapter 18, Yuko Goto Butler challenges some widely accepted ISLA
norms (e.g., communicative competence, learner autonomy, and motivation) and argues that
understanding L2 learning requires taking into account social/cultural perspectives, includ-
ing the context in which the L2 is taught and learned. Focusing on Eastern Asian contexts,
she proposes various contextually appropriate suggestions for L2 instruction. Another con-
textual variable that has been well investigated is study abroad. Carmen Pérez-Vidal (Chap-
ter 19) discusses key differences between study abroad and study at home by focusing on
contextual features (input and output opportunities), individuals’ ability to make contact
with the target language, and program features. She provides a useful list of program features
that any language institute may want to consider for successful study abroad programs. In
Chapter 20, Hayo Reinders and Glenn Stockwell overview the rapidly growing ISLA field of
computer-assisted language learning (CALL). As technology develops and empirical find-
ings from CALL research accumulate, the authors claim that CALL research can contribute
to the development of SLA, as well as benefiting from it.
Section V: Individual Differences and Instructed Second
Language Acquisition
This section addresses some of the individual differences that have been found to medi-
ate SLA processes and the effects of instruction. In Chapter 21, Patricia A. Duff addresses
social dimensions in ISLA (e.g., race, class, gender, sexuality, educational background,
9
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato
immigration status, and ethnicity). She argues that people’s perceptions and biases of social
differences ultimately influence the outcome of SLA, and she proposes some ideas for teach-
ers to consider in order to avoid negative impacts based on learners’ social differences. Chap-
ter 22, on the other hand, focuses on cognitive individual differences (i.e., language aptitude
and working memory). Shaofeng Li reviews research examining the relationships between
cognitive individual differences and types of instruction (e.g., explicit/implicit). He empha-
sizes that it is important, although challenging, to match learner types and instructional
approaches in the classroom. Kata Csizér (Chapter 23) reports on self-related models and
dynamics system theory in order to understand L2 motivation. Importantly, the author makes
a direct and convincing connection between motivation research and classroom practice. In
Chapter 24, Jean-Marc Dewaele provides a general review of psychological dimensions of
ISLA including the higher order personality traits (the Big Five). In particular, he focuses
on foreign language anxiety (FLA) and discusses how dynamically FLA is related to a web
of personality traits and states. Laura Gurzynski-Weiss (Chapter 25) provides a perspec-
tive and research findings related to a necessary yet underinvestigated component of ISLA,
that is, the teacher. In conceptualizing instructor individual characteristics (e.g., teachers’
native language(s), years of teaching experience, educational background, engagement with
research, etc.), the author establishes the significance of the research in relation to ISLA. Yet
another individual difference that has been found to affect ISLA significantly is age. Rhonda
Oliver, Bich Nguyen, and Masatoshi Sato (Chapter 26) collect a number of ISLA studies
focusing on child L2 learners. While admitting methodological challenges in working with
children, the authors lay out key similarities and differences between child SLA and adult
SLA, including the need to be mindful of how the development of children’s general cogni-
tive abilities may influence L2 acquisition. The section ends with the topic of heritage lan-
guage acquisition written by Silvina Montrul and Melissa Bowles (Chapter 27). As with the
other individual differences, instructed heritage language learning presents unique variables
and pedagogical challenges. Drawing on cognitive, sociocultural, and political perspectives,
the authors discuss some important pedagogical questions, such as whether to include L2
learners and heritage language learners in the same classroom.
Section VI: Instructed Second Language
Acquisition Research Methods
Finally, no academic discipline can advance without sound research. Consequently, this sec-
tion attempts to capture the wide and developing range of research methods that are used
in ISLA research. First, Luke Plonsky (Chapter 28) explains how important it is to increase
objectivity, systematicity, and ease of analysis in advancing quantitative research, and he
walks the reader through key decision-making points in conducing quantitative research.
He also summarizes recent meta-analyses in ISLA. In contrast, qualitative methodology is
explored by Peter I. De Costa, Lorena Valmori, and Ina Choi in Chapter 29. The authors pro-
claim that researching the mechanisms and conditions of L2 learning is insufficient to under-
stand ISLA, and they propose that social dynamics (e.g., any semiotic resources available to
learners in the classroom) need to be investigated. A series of exemplar studies helps the
reader understand the nature and strengths of qualitative research methods. The following two
chapters address the tension that exists concerning the validity of ISLA research. In Chapter 30,
Alison Mackey reports on ISLA research conducted in the classroom setting. She succinctly
summarizes data collection and analysis tools used in previous quasi-experimental stud-
ies and raises methodological challenges for classroom-based research. Kim McDonough
10
ISLA: An Overview
(Chapter 31), on the other hand, discusses research methodology and findings of common
laboratory-based research, namely, structural priming, joint attention, and elicited imita-
tion. The author calls for methodological rigor and validity in such experimental research
methods, while acknowledging that a primary goal of such research is to inform classroom
practice. The final chapter deals with research ethics, which is relevant and important for
any type of research (Chapter 32). Susan Gass and Scott Sterling contend that following
institutional guidelines (institutional review boards, or IRB) does not necessarily make a
researcher ethical. On the contrary, researchers need to consider the possible consequences
of their actions while conducting classroom studies. Particularly useful is the list of ethically
focused scenarios that the reader can ponder. As the field of ISLA advances exponentially,
ethical considerations are necessary to advance our research agenda.
Intended Audience of the Handbook
This handbook is intended for researchers, graduate students, upper-level undergraduate
students, teachers, and teacher-educators who are interested in L2 learning and teaching. For
undergraduate and nonthesis graduate students, the handbook provides an overview of the
current state of the field of ISLA. Each chapter provides updated literature, which gives the
reader an understanding of recent developments. For thesis graduate students or research-
ers, the chapters serve as useful reference points due to the thorough coverage of pertinent
studies. Also, as the experts share their personal positions on various topics, readers may
be able to situate themselves in the cutting-edge theoretical discussion. In the same vein,
the research methodology section (Section VI) and the Future Directions segments in each
chapter are useful for readers who are looking for a new research project.
For teachers and teacher-educators, theoretical debates or even research findings are
sometimes inconsequential. Rather, what is often helpful for them is a list of potential peda-
gogical practices that they can employ in their classrooms. The pedagogical implications
sections in each chapter provide such information. Also, the Teaching Tips boxes offer the
reader quick suggestions while skimming through the chapter. We would like to stress that,
unlike language textbooks and other pedagogically oriented volumes, the suggestions are
based on empirical evidence on which teachers can confidently base their pedagogical deci-
sions. We believe that, with nearly 40 years of investigation, ISLA research can and should
contribute substantially to the classroom, and we hope that teachers find the pedagogical
perspectives in this handbook relevant and useful.
Our Acknowledgments
First and foremost, we owe a debt of gratitude to the contributing authors, who were
extremely long-suffering as they incorporated our sometimes demanding, persistent requests
during the revision processes (more, more, and more!). All the chapters went through at
least three rounds of revisions, and we humbly and sincerely hope that the authors share
our view that our feedback was constructive and useful. Second, we would like to thank the
anonymous reviewers of the initial book proposal. Our original thinking (e.g., the structure of
the handbook) was pushed forward thanks to their useful suggestions. Also, we would like
to thank our research assistant, Xuehong (Stella) He, who efficiently worked on formatting
the manuscripts. Our sincere appreciation also goes to the Routledge editors. Leah Babb-
Rosenfeld and Rebecca Novack, who enthusiastically supported the project from start to
finish, and Kathrene Binag helped us through the production stage with amazing efficiency.
11
Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato
Last but not least, we thank our respective families for their patient support especially when
we were less than pleasant and reasonable. Without their support and input, this project
would not have been possible.
References
Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2011). Beyond the language classroom. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Block, D. (2014). Social class in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Borg, S., & Sanchez, H. (Eds.). (2015). International perspectives on teacher research. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Rout-
ledge.
The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern
Language Journal, 100-S1, 19–47.
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington: Ministry of
Education, New Zealand.
Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York:
Routledge.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York:
Routledge.
Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we
go from here? Language Teaching, 47(3), 349–362.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie
& T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition.
Language Teaching, 49, 35–62.
Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2015). Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical
resource. London: Bloomsbury.
Pérez-Vidal, C. (Ed.). (2014). Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Lan-
guage Learning, 63, 595–626.
Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. (Eds.). (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign language con-
texts: Research and implementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction
(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
White, L. (2015). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. Van-
Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.,
pp. 34–53). New York: Routledge.
12
Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA)
Benson, P. , & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2011). Beyond the language classroom. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Block, D. (2014). Social class in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Borg, S. , & Sanchez, H. (Eds.). (2015). International perspectives on teacher research. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z. , & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Rout-ledge.
The Douglas Fir Group . (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern
Language Journal, 100-S1, 19–47.
Ellis, N. C. , & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington: Ministry of
Education, New Zealand.
Housen, A. , & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York:
Routledge.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York:
Routledge.
Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go
from here? Language Teaching, 47 (3), 349–362.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T.
Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mackey, A. , & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language
Teaching, 49, 35–62.
Paltridge, B. , & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2015). Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource.
London: Bloomsbury.
Pérez-Vidal, C. (Ed.). (2014). Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language
Learning, 63, 595–626.
Shehadeh, A. , & Coombe, C. (Eds.). (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts:
Research and implementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
VanPatten, B. , & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd
ed.). New York: Routledge.
White, L. (2015). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. Van-Patten &
J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 34–53). New York:
Routledge.
Knowledge and Skill in ISLA
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 31 (4), 635–650.
Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-
appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 5
(4), 657–668.
Bowden, H. W. , Gelfand, M. P. , Sanz, C. , & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Verbal inflectional morphology in L1 and
L2 Spanish: A frequency effects study examining storage versus composition. Language Learning, 60 (1),
44–87.
Bowden, H. W. , Steinhauer, K. , Sanz, C. , & Ullman, M. T. (2013). Native-like brain processing of syntax
can be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2492–2511.
Brown, P. C. , Roediger, H.L.I. , & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard.
Carpenter, S. K. , Cepeda, N. J. , Rohrer, D. , Kang, S.H.K. , & Pashler, H. (2012). Using spacing to enhance
diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology
Review, 24 (3), 369–378.
Cepeda, N. J. , Pashler, H. , Vul, E. , Wixted, J. T. , & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall
tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (3), 354–380.
Chein, J. , & Schneider, W. (2005). Neuroimaging studies of practice-related change: fMRI and meta-analytic
evidence of a domain-general control network for learning. Cognitive Brain Research, 25 (3), 607–623.
Corkin, S. (2013). Permanent present tense: The unforgettable life of the amnesic patient, H.M. New York:
Basic Books.
Craik, F.I.M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present… and future? Memory, 10, 305–318.
Craik, F.I.M. , & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
de Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening? An experimental study.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 205–234.
de Jong, N. , & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of
fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 62 (2), 533–568.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (2), 195–221.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 125–151). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Study abroad as foreign language practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a
second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 208–226). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M. Long & C.
Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second language teaching (pp. 119–138). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2010a). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad
program. Foreign Language Annals, 43 (1), 80–92.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2010b). Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the
bathwater. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (1), 155–165.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 94–112). London: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. M. , & Criado-Sánchez, R. (2012). Automatization, skill acquisition, and practice in second
language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 323–331). Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. M. , & Prieto Botana, G. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar
acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36 (3), 290–305.
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M.
H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 305–352.
Ferman, S. , Olshtain, E. , Schechtman, E. , & Karni, A. (2009). The acquisition of a linguistic skill by adults:
Procedural and declarative memory interact in the learning of an artificial morphological rule. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 22, 384–412.
Gade, M. , Druey, M. D. , Souza, A. S. , & Oberauer, K. (2014). Interference within and between declarative
and procedural representations in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 174–194.
Golonka, E. M. (2006). Predictors revisited: Linguistic knowledge and metalinguistic awareness in second
language gain in Russian. Modern Language Journal, 90 (4), 496–505.
Goo, J. , Granena, G. , Yilmaz, Y. , & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris
& Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.
443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Henke, K. (2010). A model for memory systems based on processing modes rather than consciousness.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 523–532.
Hill, N. M. , & Schneider, W. (2006). Brain changes in the development of expertise: Neuroanatomical and
neurophysiological evidence about skill-based adaptations. In K. A. Ericsson , N. Charness , P. J. Feltovich ,
& R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 653–682). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, acquisition, and automatization of
second-language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18 (3), 193–223.
Hulstijn, J. H. , van Gelderen, A. , & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition:
What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30 (4), 555–582.
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. London: Routledge.
Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal
measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64 (4), 809–854.
Karpicke, J. D. , & Roediger, H.L.I. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term
retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151–162.
Karpicke, J. D. , & Roediger, H.L.I. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319,
966–968.
Kasper, G. , & Kellerman, E. (1997). Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic
perspectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Kelly, A.M.C. , & Garavan, H. (2005). Human functional neuroimaging of brain changes associated with
practice. Cerebral Cortex, 15 (8), 1089–1102.
Koedinger, K. R. , & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the
classroom. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–77). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London/New York: Longman.
Lafford, B. (2004). The effect of the context of learning on the use of communication strategies by learners of
Spanish as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (2), 201–225.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2),
309–365.
Li, M. , & DeKeyser, R. (in press). Perception practice, production practice, and musical ability in L2
Mandarin tone-word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Lightbown, P. (2007). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language
acquisition. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Lim, H. , & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial,
conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36
(5), 1247–1282.
Linn, M. C. , & Bjork, R. A. (2006). The science of learning and the learning of science: Introducing desirable
difficulties. APS Observer, 19. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2006/march-06/the-science-of-
learning-and-the-learning-of-science.html
Lockhart, R. S. (2002). Levels of processing, transfer-appropriate processing, and the concept of robust
encoding. Memory, 10, 397–403.
Lyster, R. , & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 265–302.
Lyster, R. , Saito, K. , & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms.
Language Teaching, 46 (1), 1–40.
Lyster, R. , & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M.
García Mayo , J. Gutierrez-Mangado , & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on second
language acquisition (pp. 71–91). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical
framework. Modern Language Journal, 90 (3), 320–337.
Mackey, A. , Gass, S. , & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 22 (4), 471–499.
Mackey, A. , & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Martin-Chang, S. L. , & Levy, B. A. (2005). Fluency transfer: Differential gains in reading speed and accuracy
following isolated word and context training. Reading and Writing, 18, 343–376.
Martin-Chang, S. L. , & Levy, B. A. (2006). Word reading fluency: A transfer appropriate processing account
of fluency transfer. Reading and Writing, 19, 517–542.
McNamara, T. F. (1995). Modelling performance: Opening Pandora’s box. Applied Linguistics, 16 (2),
159–179.
Moors, A. , & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 132 (2), 297–326.
Morgan-Short, K. (2012a). Declarative memory and knowledge. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
second language acquisition (pp. 157–160). London: Routledge.
Morgan-Short, K. (2012b). Procedural memory and knowledge. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 509–512). London: Routledge.
Morgan-Short, K. , Faretta-Stutenberg, M. , Bill-Schuetz, K. A. , Carpenter, H. , & Wong, P.C.M. (2014).
Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 17 (1), 56–72.
Morgan-Short, K. , Sanz, C. , Steinhauer, K. , & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of
gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language
Learning, 60 (1), 154–193.
Morris, D. D. , Bransford, J. D. , & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate
processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.
Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning: Does
gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37 (4),
677–711.
Nakic, J. , Granic, A. , & Glavinic, V. (2015). Anatomy of student models in adaptive learning systems: A
systematic literature review of individual differences from 2001 to 2013. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 51 (4), 459–489.
Newell, A. , & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R.
Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Norris, J. M. , & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative
meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417–528.
O’Brien, I. , Segalowitz, N. , Freed, B. , & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second
language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29 (4), 557–581.
Opitz, B. , & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in
learning language-like rules. NeuroImage, 19, 1730–1737.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Paulston, C. B. (1972). The sequencing of structural pattern drills. TESOL Quarterly, 6, 197–208.
Pavlik, P. I. , & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-
based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29, 559–586.
Reber, A. S. (2003). Implicit learning. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 2, pp.
486–491). London: Macmillan.
Reber, P. J. (2013). The neural basis of implicit learning and memory: A review of neuropsychological and
neuroimaging research. Neuropsychologia, 51, 2026–2042.
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language
Learning, 63 (3), 595–626.
Robinson, P. , Mackey, A. , Gass, S. , & Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language
acquisition. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
247–267). London: Routledge.
Rodgers, D. M. (2011). The automatization of verbal morphology in instructed second language acquisition.
IRAL, 49, 295–319.
Roediger, H.L.I. , Gallo, D. A. , & Geraci, L. (2002). Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from
the levels-of-processing framework. Memory, 10 (5/6), 319–332.
Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over long time periods. Educational Psychology
Review, 2, 635–643.
Rugg, M. D. , Johnson, J. D. , Park, H. , & Uncapher, M. R. (2008). Encoding-retrieval overlap in human
episodic memory: A functional neuroimaging perspective. In W. S. Sossin , J. C. Lacaille , V. F. Castelucci ,
& S. Belleville (Eds.), Progress in brain research (Vol. 169, pp. 339–352). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Russell, J. , & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar:
A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning
and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sato, M. , & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency
development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 (4),
591–626.
Schneider, V. I. , Healy, A. F. , & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (2002). What is learned under difficult conditions is hard
to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of
Memory and Language, 46, 419–440.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London: Routledge.
Segalowitz, N. , & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning
Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (2), 173–199.
Segalowitz, N. S. , & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-
up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics,
14, 369–385.
Segalowitz, S. J. , Segalowitz, N. S. , & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in
second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19 (1), 53–67.
Serrano, R. (2011). The time factor in EFL classroom practice. Language Learning, 61 (1), 117–145.
Serrano, R. , & Muñoz, C. (2007). Same hours, different time distribution: Any difference in EFL? System,
35, 305–321.
Shintani, N. , Li, S. , & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-based versus production-based grammar instruction:
A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63 (2), 296–329.
Singley, M. K. , & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Sobel, H. S. , Cepeda, N. J. , & Kapler, I. V. (2011). Spacing effects in real world classroom vocabulary
learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 763–767.
Spada, N. , Jessop, L. , Tomita, Y. , Suzuki, W. , & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused
instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 18 (4), 453–473.
Spada, N. , & Lightbown, P. (2012). Instructed second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Spada, N. , & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A
meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2), 263–308.
Squire, L. R. , & Wixted, J. T. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of human memory since H.M. Annual
Review of Neuroscience, 34, 259–288.
Suzuki, Y. , & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Does elicited imitation measure implicit knowledge? Evidence from the
word-monitoring task. Language Learning, 65 (4), 860–895.
Suzuki, Y. , & DeKeyser, R. (In press-a). Exploratory research on L2 distributed practice: An aptitude-by-
treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics.
Suzuki, Y. , & DeKeyser, R. (In press-b). Effects of distributed practice on the automatization of L2
morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research.
Suzuki, Y. , & DeKeyser, R. (submitted). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second
language.
Tanner, D. , McLaughlin, J. , Herschensohn, J. , & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages
of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (2), 367–382.
Thai, C. , & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency,
complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50 (2), 369–393.
Toppino, T. C. , & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: Repetition, spacing, and abstraction. Psychology of
Learning and Motivation, 60, 113–189.
Towell, R. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency from the perspective of psycholinguistic second
language acquisition research. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance
and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 47–69). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research,
14 (2), 103–135.
Ullman, M. T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in
second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 135–158). London: Routledge.
Williams, J. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The
new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bingley: Emerald.
Yang, Y. , & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’
acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2),
235–263.
Intentional and Incidental L2 Learning
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt
(Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 395–411). Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Barcroft, J. (2009). Effects of synonym generation on incidental and intentional L2 vocabulary learning during
reading. TESOL Quarterly, 43 (1), 79–103.
Bereiter, C. , & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),
Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bordag, D. , Kirschenbaum, A. , Tschirner, E. , & Opitz, A. (2014). Incidental acquisition of new words during
reading in L2: Inference of meaning and its integration in the L2 mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 18 (3), 372–390.
Bransford, J. D. , Franks, J. J. , Morris, C. D. , & Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning
and memory research. In L. S. Cerman & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp.
331–354). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cerezo, L. , Caras, A. , & Leow, R. P. (2016). Effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction
on the development of complex Spanish “gustar” structures: An analysis of learning outcomes and
processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 265–291.
Chen, W. , Guo, X. , Tang, J. , Zhu, L. , Yang, Z. , & Dienes, Z. (2011). Unconscious structural knowledge of
form–meaning connections. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1751–1760.
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5,
161–170.
Craik, F. I. , & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 (6), 671–684.
Craik, F. I. , & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 (3), 268–294.
Ellis, N. C. (2015). Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P.
Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 3–23). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Incidental learning and orienting tasks. In C. R. Puff (Ed.), Handbook of research
methods in human memory and cognition (pp. 197–228). New York: Academic Press.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Godfroid, A. , Boers, F. , & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in incidental
L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (3),
483–517.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Grey, S. , Williams, J. N. , & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Incidental exposure and L3 learning of morphosyntax.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36 (4), 611–645.
Grey, S. , Williams, J. N. , & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Individual differences in incidental language learning:
Phonological working memory, learning styles, and personality. Learning and Individual Differences, 38,
44–53.
Hama, M. , & Leow, R. P. (2010). Learning without awareness revisited. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32 (3), 465–491.
Hamrick, P. (2014). Recognition memory for novel syntactic structures. Canadian Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 68, 2–7.
Hamrick, P. , & Rebuschat, P. (2014). Frequency effects, learning conditions, and the development of implicit
and explicit lexical knowledge. In J. Connor-Linton & L. Amoroso (Eds.), Measured language: Quantitative
approaches to acquisition, assessment, processing, and variation (pp. 125–139). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Housen, A. , & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Hsieh, H.-C. , Moreno, N. , & Leow, R. P. (2015). Awareness, type of medium, and L2 development:
Revisiting Hsieh (2008). In R. P. Leow , L. Cerezo , & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to
technology and L2 learning (pp. 131–150). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1989). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of
natural and partly artificial input. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processing (pp. 49–73).
Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary
learning. In P. J. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113–125). London:
Macmillan.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2013). Incidental learning in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2632–2637). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hulstijn, J. H. , & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in
vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51 (3), 539–558.
Hyde, T. S. , & Jenkins, J. J. (1973). Recall for words as a function of semantic, graphic, and syntactic
orienting tasks. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 471–480.
Jenkins, J. G. (1933). Instruction as a factor in “incidental” learning. American Journal of Psychology, 45 (3),
471–477.
Kachinske, I. , Osthus, P. , Solovyeva, K. , & Long, M. (2015). Implicit learning of an L2 morphosyn-tactic
rule, and its relevance for language teaching: Second language acquisition program. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.),
Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 387–415). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load
hypothesis on trial. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3), 365–386.
Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition.
Language Learning, 58 (2), 285–325.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input
hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
Laufer, B. , & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of
task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47 (3),
467–505.
Leow, R. P. (1998a). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and
Villa’s (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–160.
Leow, R. P. (1998b). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2 development in SLA.
Modern Language Journal, 82 (1), 49–68.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 22 (4), 557–584.
Leow, R. P. (2012). Explicit and implicit learning in the L2 classroom: What does the research suggest?
European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 2, 117–129.
Leow, R. P. (2013). Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis: More than two decades after. In J. M. Bergsleithner , S.
N. Frota , & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor in Richard
Schmidt (pp. 23–35). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Leow, R. P. (2015a). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York:
Routledge.
Leow, R. P. (2015b). Implicit learning in SLA: Of processes and products. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and
explicit learning of languages (pp. 47–65). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Leow, R. P. , & Cerezo, L. (2016). Deconstructing the “I” and “SLA” in ISLA: One curricular approach.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 43–63.
Leow, R. P. , Grey, S. , Marijuan, S. , & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures,
processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30 (2),
111–127.
Leow, R. P. , & Hama, M. (2013). Implicit learning in SLA and the issue of internal validity. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 35 (3), 545–557.
Leow, R. P. , Johnson, E. , & Zárate-Sández, G. (2011). Getting a grip on the slippery construct of
awareness: Toward a finer-grained methodological perspective. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and
explicit conditions, processes and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 61–72). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Leung, J.H.C. , & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings between forms and contextually-
derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (1), 33–55.
Leung, J.H.C. , & Williams, J. N. (2012). Constraints on implicit learning of grammatical form–meaning
connections. Language Learning, 62 (2), 634–662.
Leung, J.H.C. , & Williams, J. N. (2014). Crosslinguistic differences in implicit language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 29, 1–23.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Martínez-Fernández, A. (2008). Revisiting the involvement load hypothesis: Awareness, type of task and
type of item. In M. Bowles , R. Foote , S. Perpiñán , & R. Bhatt (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007
second language research forum (pp. 210–228). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Mechanic, A. (1964). The responses involved in the rote learning of verbal materials. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 30–36.
Medina, A. (2015). The variable effects of level of awareness and CALL versus non-CALL textual
modification on adult L2 readers’ input comprehension and learning. In R. P. Leow , L. Cerezo , & M. Baralt
(Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and L2 learning (pp. 109–130). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Perruchet, P. , & Pacteau, C. (1991). Implicit acquisition of abstract knowledge about artificial grammar:
Some methodological and conceptual issues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 112–116.
Postman, L. (1964). Short-term memory and incidental learning. Categories of Human Learning, 24,
145–201.
Ramos, R. , & Dario, F. (2015). Incidental vocabulary learning in second language acquisition: A literature
review. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 17 (1), 157–166.
Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
6 (6), 855–863.
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research: A review.
Language Learning, 63, 595–626.
Rebuschat, P. , Hamrick, P. , Sachs, R. , Riestenberg, K. , & Ziegler, N. (2013). Implicit and explicit
knowledge of form–meaning connections: Evidence from subjective measures of awareness. In J.
Bergsleithner , S. Frota , & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in
honor in Richard Schmidt (pp. 249–270). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
Rebuschat, P. , Hamrick, P. , Sachs, R. , Riestenberg, K. , & Ziegler, N. (2015). Triangulating measures of
awareness: A contribution to the debate on learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 37, 299–334.
Rebuschat, P. , & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.
Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second
language learning. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 9, 303–357.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-
search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (1), 27–67.
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental,
enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (2), 223–247.
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual
differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar
and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and
Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 235–268.
Robinson, P. (2010). Implicit artificial grammar and incidental natural second language learning: How
comparable are they? Language Learning, 60, 245–263.
Rogers, J. , Révész, A. , & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Implicit and explicit knowledge of inflectional morphology.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 781–812.
Rosa, E. M. , & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language
development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25 (2), 269–292.
Rosa, E. M. , & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the
puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.
Rott, S. (2005). Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form–meaning connections are
established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17 (2), 95–124.
Sachs, R. , & Suh, B-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in
synchronous computer-mediated interaction, In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second-
language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 197–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 110–114.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2),
129–158.
Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N.
C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–210). London: Academic Press.
Shanks, D. R. , & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human systems. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 17, 367–447.
Tomlin, R. S. , & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wesche, M. , & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus
breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53 (1), 13–40.
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 269–304.
Williams, J. N. (2010). Initial incidental acquisition of word order regularities: Is it just sequence learning?
Language Learning, 60 (2), 221–244.
Williams, J. N. , & Kuribara, C. (2008). Comparing a nativist and emergentist approach to the initial stage of
SLA: An investigation of Japanese scrambling. Lingua, 118, 522–553.
Winke, P. M. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 35 (2), 323–352.
Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in L2 Production
Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in
intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16
(1), 129–149.
Ahmadian, M. J. , & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task
repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching
Research, 15 (1), 35–59.
Alexopoulou, T. , Michel, M. , Murakami, A. , & Meurers, D. (2017, Advance Access) Task effects on
linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large-scale learner corpus analysis employing Natural Language
Processing techniques. Language Learning, Special Issue on Language learning research at the intersection
of experimental, corpus-based and computational methods.
Anthony, L. (2015). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4.1) [Computer program]. Tokyo, Waseda University.
Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/
Baralt, M. , Gilabert, R. , & Robinson, P. (Eds.). (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language
learning. London: Bloomsbury.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly,
26 (2), 390–395.
Boersma, P. , & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Retrieved
from http://www.praat.org/
Bosker, H. , Pinget, A. , Quené, H. , Sanders, T. , & de Jong, N. (2013). What makes speech sound fluent?
The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159–175.
Brumfit, C. (1979). Communicative language teaching: An educational perspective. In C. J. Brumfit & K.
Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 183–191). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bulté, B. , & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I.
Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.
23–46). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D.
Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In K. van den
Branden , M. Bygate , & J. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (Vol. 1, pp. 249–274).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bygate, M. , & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.),
Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25 (4), 535–544.
Cobb, T. : Web Vocabprofile, an adaptation of Heatley, Nation & Coxhead’s (2002). Range. [Computer
program]. Retrieved from http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/
Crookes, D. (1990). The utterance and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 183–199.
de Jong, N. H. , Groenhout, R. , Schoonen, R. , & Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking
style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 36, 223–243.
de Jong, N. H. , Steinel, M. , Florijn, A. , Schoonen, R. , & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 (1), 5–34.
de Jong, N. H. , & Wempe, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate
automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (2), 385–390.
Derwing, T. M. , & Rossiter, M. J. (2003). The effects of pronunciation instruction on the accuracy, fluency,
and complexity of L2 accented speech. Applied Language Learning, 13 (1), 1–17.
Dewaele, J. M. , & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot study of second language
learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28 (2), 355–365.
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Ellis, R. , & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance.
In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-based performance in a second language (pp. 167–192).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ferrari, S. (2012). A longitudinal study of complexity, accuracy and fluency variation in second language
development. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency
(pp. 277–298). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Foster, P. , & Skehan, P. (1999). The effect of source of planning and focus on planning on task-based
performance. Language Teaching Research, 3 (3), 185–215.
Foster, P. , Tonkyn, A. , & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons.
Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 354–375.
Foster, P. , & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a
weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116.
Freed, B. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),
Perspectives on fluency (pp. 243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gilabert, R. , Barón, J. , & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In
P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language
learning and performance (pp. 105–138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gunnarsson, C. (2012). The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in the written production of L2
French. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency (pp.
247–276). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Housen, A. , & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 30 (4), 461–473.
Housen, A. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency:
Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Housen, A. , Schoonjans, E. , Janssens, S. , Welcomme, A. , Schoonheere, E. , & Pierrard, M. (2011).
Conceptualizing and measuring the impact of contextual factors in instructed SLA—the role of language
prominence. IRAL—International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49 (2), 83–112.
Hsu, H. C. (2015, advance access). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in
text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 1–28.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structure written at three grade levels (Research Report 3). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Inoue, C. (2016). A comparative study of the variables used to measure syntactic complexity and accuracy in
task-based research. Language Learning Journal, 44 (4), 1–19.
Jackson, D. O. , & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of
research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63 (2), 330–367.
Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63 (s1), 87–106.
Jarvis, S. , & Daller, M. (Eds.). (2013). Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Johnson, M. D. , Mercado, L. , & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing
fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264–282.
Kim, Y. J. , & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What
needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41 (3), 829–840.
Koponen, M. , & Riggenbach, H. (2000). Overview: Varying perspectives on fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),
Perspectives on fluency (pp. 5–24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kormos, J. , & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second
language learners. System, 32, 145–164.
Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a
foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (1), 48–60.
Kuiken, V. , & Vedder, I. (2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task
complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.),
Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 143–169).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I. (2014). Rating written performance: What do raters do and why? Language Testing,
31 (3), 329–348.
Kuiken, F. , Vedder, I. , & Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2
writing. In I. Bartning , M. Martin , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development:
Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 81–100). Eurosla Monographs 1. Eurosla.
Lambert, C. , & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based l2 research: Toward
more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35 (5),
607–614.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12 (4), 439–448.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written
production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 590–619.
Leijten, M. , & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using InputLog to analyze and
visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30 (3), 358–392.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40 (3),
387–417.
Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),
Perspectives on fluency (pp. 25–42). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics, 15 (4), 474–496.
Mackey, A. , Kanganas, A. , & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 285–312.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The childes project: Tools for analyzing talk [Computer Program]. Retrieved from
http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/
Malvern, D. , & Richards, B. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.),
Evolving models of language (pp. 58–71). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Malvern, D. , & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a
new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19 (1), 85–104.
McCarthy, P. M. , & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated
approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42 (2), 381–392.
McNamara, D. S. , Louwerse, M. M. , Cai, Z. , & Graesser, A. (2013). Coh-Metrix version 3.0. Retrieved from
http://cohmetrix.com
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20 (1), 52–83.
Michel, M. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and
performance (pp. 141–174). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Michel, M. (2013). Effects of task complexity on the use of conjunctions in oral L2 task performance. Modern
Language Journal, 97 (1), 178–195.
Michel, M. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks
in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (3), 241–259.
Mora, J. C. , & Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study
abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (4), 610–641.
Munoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Norris, J. M. , & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The
case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 555–578.
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R.
Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4),
590–601.
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31 (1), 117–134.
Pinter, A. (2005). Task repetition with 10-year-old children. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers
exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 113–126). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Polat, B. , & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced
untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35 (2), 184–207.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language
Learning, 47, 101–143.
Polio, C. G. , & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second
language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27.
Révész, A. , Ekiert, M. , & Torgersen, E. (2014, advance access). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and
fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 1–22.
Révész, A. , Kourtali, N. , & Mazgutova, D. (2016, advance access). The effects of task complexity on L2
writing processes, behaviours and linguistic complexity. Language Learning.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a
componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57.
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of
language learning and performance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sato, M. (2014). Exploring the construct of interactional oral fluency: Second language acquisition and
language testing approaches. System, 45, 79–91.
Sauro, S. (2012). L2 performance in text-chat and spoken discourse. System, 40, 335–348.
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),
Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London: Routledge.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36 (1), 1–14.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and
lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510–532.
Skehan, P. , & Foster, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency and lexis in task/based performance: A
synthesis of the Ealing research. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2
performance and proficiency (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Spoelman, M. , & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A
longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31 (4), 532–553.
Tavakoli, P. (2016). Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and
measuring L2 fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54 (2), 133–150.
Tavakoli, P. , Campbell, C. , & McCormack, J. (2015). Development of speech fluency over a short period of
time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50 (2), 1–25.
Tavakoli, P. , & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis
(Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–277). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Thewissen, J. (2013). Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL
learner corpus. Modern Language Journal, 97, 77–101.
Tonkyn, A. (2012). Measuring and perceiving changes in oral complexity, accuracy and fluency. In A.
Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency (pp. 221–245).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Vercellotti, M. L. (2015, advance online access). The Development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in
second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, 1–23.
Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing,
17 (1), 65–83.
Vyatkina, N. , Hirschmann, H. , & Golcher, F. (2015). Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German
writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 28–50.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. , & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of
fluency, accuracy, & complexity (No. 17). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Sociocultural Theory in the L2 Classroom
Aljaafreh, A. , & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the
zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
Al Shahrani, A. , & Storch, N. (2014). Investigating teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi
EFL context: How do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students’ preferences?
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 101–122.
Azkarai, A. , & Garcia Mayo, M. P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language
Teaching Research, 19 (5), 550–571.
Basturkmen, H. , East, M. , & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of
dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19
(4), 432–445.
Bitchener, J. , & Storch, N. (2016). Written CF for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Brooks, L. , & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation and response to expertise. In
A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of
Susan M. Gass (pp. 58–89). New York: Routledge.
Centeno-Cortés, B. , & Jiménez-Jiménez, A. (2004). Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: The
importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14 (1), 7–35.
de Guerrero, M.C.M. , & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision.
Modern Language Journal, 78 (4), 484–496.
de Guerrero, M.C.M. , & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision.
Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 51–68.
DiNitto, R. (2000). Can collaboration be unsuccessful? A sociocultural analysis of classroom setting and
Japanese L2 performance in group tasks. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 34 (2),
179–210.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Edstrom, A. (2015). Triads in the L2 classroom: Interaction patterns and engagement during a collaborative
task. System, 52, 26–37.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63 (2), 97–107.
Erlam, R. , Ellis, R. , & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches
compared. System, 41, 257–268.
Fernández, M. , Wegerif, R. , Mercer, N. , & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2015). Re-conceptualizing “scaffolding”
and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 50 (1), 54–72.
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and
individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (1), 40–58.
Fernández Dobao, A. (2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group
interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70 (2), 158–187.
Fernández Dobao, A. (2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In M. Sato & S.
Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction in second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda
(pp. 33–61). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Frawley, W. , & Lantolf, J. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied
Linguistics, 6 (1), 19–44.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Teacher interactions with ESL students in content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
37 (2), 247–273.
Girault, I. , & d’Ham, C. (2014). Scaffolding a complex task of experimental design in chemistry with a
computer environment. Journal of Science, Education and Technology, 23 (4), 514–526.
Gregg, K. R. (1993). Taking explanations seriously; or: Let a couple of flowers bloom. Applied Linguistics, 14
(3), 276–294.
Guk, I. , & Kellog, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional
mediation of tasks. Lanaguage Teaching Research, 11 (3), 281–299.
Hammond, J. , & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in
articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20 (1), 6–30.
Ishikawa, M. (2013). Examining the effect of written languaging: The role of metanotes as a mediator of
second language learning. Language Awareness, 22 (3), 220–233.
Kim, Y. J. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary.
Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 114–130.
Knouzi, I. , Swain, M. , Lapkin, S. , & Brooks, L. (2010). Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging:
Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 23–49.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33 (1), 79–96.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Second language activity theory: Understanding second language
learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 141–158). London:
Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Li, M. , & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26 (1), 61–82.
Loewen, S. , & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.),
Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184).
Mahwah, NJ: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24
(4), 649–666.
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Luria, R. (1973). The working brain. New York: Basic Books.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskyan theory and classroom education. In B. Steirer & J. Maybin (Eds.),
Language, literacy and learning in educational practice (pp. 92–110). Clevedon: Multi-lingual Matters.
Morton, J. , Thompson, C. , & Storch, N. (2014). Feedback in the supervision of postgraduate students:
Insights from the work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8 (1), 24–36.
Moschkovich, J. (2015). Scaffolding student participation in mathematical practices. International Journal of
Mathematics Education, 47 (7), 1067–1078.
Nassaji, H. (2012). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus
nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 315–334.
Nassaji, H. , & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of
random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9 (1), 34–51.
Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads to second language development. In
J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp.
189–227). London: Equinox.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Both sides of the conversation. In J. P. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural
theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 33–56). London: Equinox.
Poehner, M. E. , & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky’s teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The
case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17, 312–330.
Roth, W. M. , & Radford, L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (systematically). Mind
Culture and Activity, 17 (4), 299–307.
Rouhshad, A. , & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-
mediated contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning:
Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27 (1), 4–13.
Stevenson, M. , & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing.
Assessing Writing, 19 (1), 51–65.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL
class. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–480.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. , & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class.
Language Teaching Research, 14, 355–375.
Storch, N. , & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback
on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
Storch, N. , & Wigglesworth, G. (2010b). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner
agency/beliefs. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning
(pp. 166–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language
Learning, 62, 1110–1133.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue.
In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes
(Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London:
Continuum.
Swain, M. , Kinnear, P. , & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An
introduction through narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. , & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to
reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
Tocalli-Beller, A. , & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15 (1), 5–28.
van Compernolle, R. A. , & Williams, L. (2013). Sociocultural theory and second language pedagogy.
Language Teaching Research, 17 (3), 277–281.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural approach. Amsterdam:
Kluwer Academic.
Villamil, O. S. , & de Guerrero, M.C.M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Socio-cognitive activities,
mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51–75.
Villamil, O. S. , & de Guerrero, M.C.M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 491–514.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity
in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. , & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner
(Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174). Oxford: Blackwell.
Watanabe, Y. (2014). Collaborative and independent writing: Japanese university English learners’
processes, texts and opinions (Unpublished PhD thesis). Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, University
of Toronto.
Watanabe, Y. , & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on
second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching
Research, 11 (2), 121–142.
Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: Tutorial conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland &
F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 246–265). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wilson, K. , & Devereux, L. (2014). Scaffolding theory: High challenge, high support in Academic Language
and Learning (ALL) contexts. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8, A91–A100.
Wood, D. , Bruner, J. S. , & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Yang, L. (2014). Examining the meditational means in collaborative writing: Case studies in undergraduate
ESL students in business courses. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23 (1), 74–89.
Content-Based Language Teaching
Airey, J. (2012). I don’t teach language: The linguistic attitudes of physics lectures in Sweden. AILA Review,
25, 64–79.
Allen, P. , Swain, M. , Harley, B. , & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Toward a more
comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley , P. Allen , J. Cummins , & M. Swain (Eds.),
The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arias, A. , & Izquierdo, J. (2015). Language attention in content-based instruction: The case of language
instructors teaching content in a foreign language in Mexican Higher Education. Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based Education, 3 (2), 194–217.
Arnau, J. , & Vila, F. X. (2013). Language-in-education policies in the Catalan language area. In J. Arnau
(Ed.), Reviving Catalan at school: Challenges and instructional approaches (pp. 1–28). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in
French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1 (1), 131–148.
Ballinger, S. (2015). Linking content, linking students: A cross-linguistic pedagogical intervention. In J. Cenoz
& D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: New perspectives (pp. 35–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Björklund, S. , Mård-Miettinen, K. , & Savijärvi, M. (2013). Swedish immersion in the early years in Finland.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17 (2), 197–214.
Bostwick, M. (2001). English immersion in a Japanese school. In D. Christian & F. Genesee (Eds.), Bilingual
education (pp. 125–138). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Brinton, D. , Snow, M. , & Wesche, M. (2003). Content-based second language instruction (2nd ed.). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Burger, S. , & Chrétien, S. (2001). The development of oral production in content-based second language
courses at the University of Ottawa. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58 (1), 84–102.
Cammarata, L. (Ed.). (2016). Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for
developing advanced thinking and literacy skills. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Cammarata, L. , & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of
immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269.
Cenoz, J. (2008). Achievements and the challenges in bilingual and multilingual education in the Basque
Country. AILA Review, 21, 13–30.
Coleman, J. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1–14.
Costa, J. , & Lyster, R. (2011). Revitalization of regional languages in France through immersion. Canadian
Issues, Fall Issue, 55–58.
Coyle, D. , Hood, P. , & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–241.
Cumming, J. , & Lyster, R. (2016). Integrating CBI into high school foreign language classrooms. In L.
Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing
advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 77–97). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Day, E. , & Shapson, S. (1996). Studies in immersion education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Day, E. , & Shapson, S. (2001). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French
immersion. Language Learning, 51 (S1), 47–80.
Early, M. (2001). Language and content in social practice: A case study. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 58, 156–179.
Echevarría, J. , & Graves, A. (1998). Sheltered content instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Echevarría, J. , Vogt, M. , & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP
model. Boston: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Feye, B. , & Krzaklewska, E. (2013). The ERASMUS phenomenon: Symbol of a new European generation?
Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
French, L. (2007). Brazilian bilingual education: Another language, another soul. New Routes, September
Issue, 28–30.
García Mayo, P. (2015). The interface between task-based language teaching and content-based instruction.
System, 54, 1–3.
Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In T. K.
Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism (pp. 547–576). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the
mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247–273.
Haneda, M. (2005). Functions of triadic dialogue in the classroom: Examples for L2 research. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 62, 313–333.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics,
10, 331–359.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of form-focused tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156–174). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B. , Allen, P. , Cummins, J. , & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1987). Development of bilingual proficiency: Final
report: Volume II: Classroom treatment. Toronto, ON: Modern Language Centre, OISE/UT.
Harley, B. , Cummins, J. , Swain, M. , & Allen, P. (1990). The nature of language proficiency. In B. Harley ,
P. Allen , J. Cummins , & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7–25).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoare, P. (2010). Content-based language teaching in China: Contextual influences on implementation.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31, 69–86.
Hoare, P. , & Kong, S. (2008). Late immersion in Hong Kong: Still stressed or making progress? In T.
Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to bilingualism and multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on
immersion education (pp. 242–263). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Koike, D. , & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic
competence. System, 33, 481–501.
Kong, S. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content-trained teachers’ and language-
trained teachers pedagogies? Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 233–268.
Kong, S. , & Hoare, P. (2011). Cognitive content engagement in content-based language teaching.
Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 307–324.
Lasagabaster, D. , & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities.
ELT Journal, 64, 367–375.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lingley, D. (2006). A task-based approach to teaching a content-based Canadian studies course in an EFL
context. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 122–139.
Llinares, A. , & Dafouz, E. (2010). Content and language integrated programmes in the Madrid Region:
Overview and research findings. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain:
Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 95–114). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Llinares, A. , & Lyster, R. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner
uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. Language Learning Journal, 42, 181–194.
Llinares, A. , Morton, T. , & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Luning, R. , & Yamauchi, L. (2010). The influences of indigenous heritage language education on students
and families in a Hawaiian language immersion program. Heritage Language Journal, 7, 46–75.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’
sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263–287.
Lyster, R. (1998). The ambiguity of recasts and repetition in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 20 (1), 51–81.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form—focused instruction. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26 (3), 399–432.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. (2015). Using form-focused tasks to integrate language across the immersion curriculum. System,
53, 4–13.
Lyster, R. (2016). Vers une approche intégrée en immersion. Montreal: Les Éditions CEC.
Lyster, R. , Collins, L. , & Ballinger, S. (2009). Linking languages through a bilingual read-aloud project.
Language Awareness, 18, 366–383.
Lyster, R. , Quiroga, J. , & Ballinger, S. (2013). The effects of biliteracy instruction on morphological
awareness. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1 (2), 169–197.
Lyster, R. , & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 37–66.
Lyster, R. , & Rebuffot, J. (2002). Acquisition des pronoms d’allocution en classe de français immersif.
Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère, 17, 51–71.
Lyster, R. , Saito, K. , & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms.
Language Teaching, 46 (1), 1–40.
Lyster, R. , & Tedick, D. J. (2014). Research perspectives on immersion pedagogy: Looking back and
looking forward. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Education, 2 (2), 210–224.
Mercer, N. (1999). Classroom language. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics
(pp. 315–319). Oxford: Pergamon.
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mohan, B. , & Beckett, G. H. (2001). A functional approach to research on content-based language learning:
Recasts in causal explanations. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 133–155.
Moriyoshi, N. (2010). Content-based instruction in Japanese college classrooms: Focusing on language,
content, or both? (Unpublished master’s thesis). McGill University, Montreal.
Mougeon, R. , Nadasdi, T. , & Rehner, K. (2010). The sociolinguistic competence of immersion students.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nassaji, H. , & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation of teacher–student
interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376–406.
Nicholas, H. , & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Defining child second language acquisition, defining roles for L2
instruction. In J. Philip , R. Oliver , & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the young learner:
Child’s play? (pp. 27–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ó Baoill, D. (2007). Origins of Irish-medium education: The dynamic core of language revitalization in
Northern Ireland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 410–427.
Penner, S. (1987). Parental responses to grammatical and ungrammatical child utterances. Child
Development, 58, 376–384.
Peter, L. (2014). Language ideologies and Cherokee revitalization: Impracticality, legitimacy, and hope.
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2 (1), 96–118.
Peter, L. , Hirata-Edds, T. , & Montgomery-Anderson, B. (2008). Verb development by children in the
Cherokee language immersion program, with implications for teaching. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 18 (2), 166–187.
Poirier, J. , & Lyster, R. (2014). Les pronoms objets directs de la 3e personne et leur apport aux indices du
genre grammatical dans le discours oral des enseignants en immersion. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 70 (2), 246–267.
Reedy, T. (2000). Te Reo Maori: The past 20 years and looking forward. Oceanic Linguistics, 39, 157–169.
Rodgers, D. (2006). Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence from Italian content-based
instruction. Modern Language Journal, 90, 373–386.
Rodgers, D. (2015). Incidental language learning in foreign language content courses. Modern Language
Journal, 99, 113–136.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country.
International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60–73.
Salomone, A. (1992). Immersion teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices: Results of a descriptive
analysis. In E. Bernhardt (Ed.), Life in language immersion classrooms (pp. 9–44). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Sharpe, T. (2006). “Unpacking” scaffolding: Identifying discourse and multimodal strategies that support
learning. Language and Education, 20 (3), 211–231.
Sinclair, J. , & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and
pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smit, U. , & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to
English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe. AILA Review, 25, 1–12.
Spezzini, S. (2005). English immersion in Paraguay: Individual and sociocultural dimensions of language
learning and use. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 79–98.
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning.
TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68–83.
Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language
in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15, 325–342.
Tedick, D. , & Young, A. (2014). Fifth-grade two-way immersion students’ responses to form-focused
instruction. Applied Linguistics, 1–25. doi:10.1093/applin/amu066
Tedick, D. , & Wesely, P. (2015). A review of research on content-based foreign/second language education
in US K–12 contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28 (1), 25–40.
Tomlin, R. , & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–203.
Trent, J. (2010). Teacher identity construction across the curriculum: Promoting cross-curriculum
collaboration in English-medium schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30 (2), 167–183.
Weiner, S. L. , & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). A move toward a psychology of conversation. In R. Free-dle
(Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 213–225). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wesche, M. (Ed.). (2001). French immersion and content-based language teaching in Canada [Special
Issue]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58 (1).
Wesche, M. , & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language instruction. In
R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wong, J. , & Waring, H. Z. (2009). “Very good” as a teacher response. ELT Journal, 63 (3), 195–203.
Wright, R. (1996). A study of the acquisition of verbs of motion by grade 4/5 early French immersion
students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 257–280.
Task-Based Language Teaching
Anton, M. , & DeCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2
classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–342.
Baralt, M. , Gilabert, R. , & Robinson, P. (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning.
London: Bloomsbury.
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second
language curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL
Quarterly, 38 (4), 639–662.
Cutrone, P. , & Beh, S. (2015). Welcome to Kyushu Japan: A task-based approach to EFL learning. Tokyo:
Shoakusha.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second
language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 223–236.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2009a). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 19 (3), 221–246.
Ellis, R. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2
oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition and language teaching materials. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English
language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 33–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. , & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. , & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition
research. London: Routledge.
Erlam, R. (2016). I’m still not sure what a task is: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching
Research, 20, 279–299.
Foster, P. , & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (3), 299–324.
Gass, S. , & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interactions, and output in second language acquisition. In B.
VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Housen, A. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency:
Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Howatt, A.P.R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, D. , & Seuthanpronkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of
research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.
Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford: Pergamon.
Klippel, F. (1984). Keep talking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lambert, C. , & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward
more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35, 607–614.
Lambert, C. , & Robinson, P. (2014). Learning to perform narrative task: A semester long study of task
sequencing effects. In M. Baralt , R. Gilabert , & P. Robinson (Eds.) Task sequencing and instructed second
language learning (pp. 207-230). London: Bloomsbury.
Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms.
Language Teaching, 40, 243–249.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K.
Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.
K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New
York: Academic.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: Wiley.
Mackey, A. , Gass, S. , & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 22 (4), 471–497.
Mackey, A. , & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies
(pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pica, R. , Kanagy, R. , & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language
research and instruction. In. S. Gass & G. Crookes (Eds.), Task-based learning in a second language (pp.
171–192). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.),
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–75). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Révész, A. (2014). Task-based learning: Research methods. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of
applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Richards, J. , & Rogers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3th ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a
componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57.
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of the issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36.
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of
the teacher. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language
learning, teaching and testing (pp. 379–400). Harlow: Longman.
Samuda, V. , & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). “Task” as research construct. Language Learning, 55 (3), 533–570.
Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form—a myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57 (3), 225–233.
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on
vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137–158.
Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for
young, beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 115–140.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17,
38–62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain
(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167–185).
Harlow: Longman.
Skehan, P. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26 (3),
376–401.
Tong-Fredericks, C. (1984). Types of oral communication activities and the language they generate: A
comparison. System, 12, 133–134.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. , & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
Cognitive-Interactionist Approaches to L2 Instruction
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey
(Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.
29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ammar, A. , & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 8, 543–574.
Azkarai, A. , & García Mayo, M. (in press). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based
interaction. Language Teaching Research.
Baralt, M. , & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in
computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201–229.
Baralt, M. , & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. , & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with the language: How examining
learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In M.
Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and
research agenda (pp. 209–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-
analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate , P.
Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing
(pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). Routledge: New York.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. , Basturkmen, H. , & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language
Learning, 51, 281–318.
Ellis, R. , Tanaka, Y. , & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of
L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.
Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk,
foreigner talk and pidgins. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 141–150).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fernández-García, M. , & Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and
computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15, 113–136.
Foster, P. , & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based
performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.
Fujii, A. , Ziegler, N. , & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL
classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical
potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gass, S. , & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B.
VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–200).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. , & Mackey, A. (2015). Interaction approaches. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in
second language acquisition (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. , & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. , & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional
feedback in face-to-face and computer-mediated modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. , & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of
feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.
Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second
and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches (pp. 34–70). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Iwasaki, J. , & Oliver, R. (2003). Chatline interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 17, 60–73.
Jeon, K. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversation interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 379–403).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Junqueira, L. , & Kim, Y. (2013). Exploring the relationship between training, beliefs and teachers’ corrective
feedback practices: A case study of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 61, 181–206.
Keck, C. , Iberri-Shea, G. , Tracy-Ventura, N. , & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.),
Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254–268.
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities and Korean EFL learners’ question development.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658.
Kim, Y. (2013a). Effects of pre task modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL
Quarterly, 47, 8–35.
Kim, Y. (2013b). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In K.
McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 3–24).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kim, Y. (2015). The role of tasks as vehicles for learning in classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.),
Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 163–181). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kim, Y. , & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The
role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677.
Krashen, S. D. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. Atlantis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education (pp.
168–180). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lai, C. , & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60,
309–365.
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences
in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97 (3), 634–654.
Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 24–40). New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S. , & Nabei, T. (2007). The effect of oral corrective feedback on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge.
In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition: A series of empirical
studies (pp. 361–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S. , & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and
effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
The Routledge Handbook of Instructed SLA
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search